- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/51620160
I love how they put a pic of “Epstein File Mark” in the article ;)
You must log in or register to comment.
Rise up.
Just ban them for everyone. Pervert glasses have no legitimate use.
Everything they can do, a go-pro or adjacent camera would work without issue and with less ambiguity.
The only reason you could possibly have for using them is to film people in secret. Like a pervert.
Just ban the sales of pervert glasses, period.
It’ll accomplish the same thing, but be a lot easier legally.
But that’s their whole demographic.
Buying and using, if it should make sense.
I’d be on board if “Sex offender” only included the people that everyone seems to think it includes. However it also includes people who peed in public while drunk, people who turned to prostitution when they fell on hard times, and children who were victims themselves.
Only thing that will make both sides happy is banning them entirely, which I am 100% in favor of
(Seriously, though, look up what gets classed as a sexual offence in your area. It’s not just child molestation, and sexual assault.)
However it also includes people who peed in public while drunk
Nope, in the UK it requires more than just public urination to be seen as a sex offender. Unless you are windmilling and pissing all over someone’s window.
Ahh, neat, didn’t know that!
How does a child victim end up a sex offender [without doing something else]?
Typically it is by doing something else because they’re mimicking what an adult did to them. Usually it’s younger kids (under 7-8) who mimic like that.
“Upload your ID for every transaction to prove you’re not a sex offender”.
if u cared about privacy y would u buy mr ihateprivacy glasses???
When buying a gun and/or pervert glasses, yes, sounds very reasonable?
Either we believe in giving people the chance to become functioning citizens of society again or we don’t. I’d argue the “don’t” doesn’t seem to work out too well for the Americans. Europe, meanwhile taking the former attitude, has far better recidivism rates.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235223000867
Given the recidivism rates in even the best performing countries is so high I disagree.
Denmark, Finland and Norway have similar two year conviction rates when accounting for other factors.
20-30% of sexual predators will offend again AND be caught within two years. Given the delays in reporting sexual abuse and the general lack of reporting to start with this is remarkably high.
Given the risk these predators pose to innocent people they shouldn’t be trusted nor afforded the full rights available to ordinary citizens.
20-30% of sexual predators will offend again AND be caught within two years.
So, do I understand that you’re willing to enact measures based on a presumption of recidivism despite 70+% not doing so according to the research you’re citing?
I don’t agree that it’s morally right to punish a criminal based on the assumption they will repeat offend when the research indicates a majority doesn’t. My conclusion from that research would be better methods of correcting the behavior and verifying compliance are probably necessary. Not group punishment.
I know it’s a hot-take… But how about we (Earth) ban smart glasses.
This isn’t wise for the sole reason that they really are a great benefit to the visually impaired.
Right now the tech is super useful, being able to read small text out loud and differentiate similar objects that certain conditions make difficult. However, the tech has the potential to do so much more.
Banning it now would be like slapping a whole lot of disabled people in the face.
Well in that case they should be regulated with a licence or even a prescription, right? To add to this, disabled people in the example you’re putting forward don’t need internet connectivity or filming capabilities. I see your concern but when the price is the privacy of the entire planet, I can’t accept your argument.
You think people should need a license to use technology like glasses and cameras. Listen to yourself!
I don’t know what kind of “anti” hole you fell into but you need to crawl back out.
Technology that trains AI for fascistic multi-billion dollar companies? Films, tracks, listens to private and potentially sensitive conversations? Yeah, probably.
I’m comfortable in my hole. Maybe you should take the advice of a stranger on the internet instead and grow the fuck up.
And what if you’re visually impaired and you are a pervert? Jocking… /s
They do not need to have hidden cameras to work as an aid. The push to make the cameras and microphones hidden is the problem.
Who’s pushing to make them hidden? If you want hidden cameras there’s thousands of vastly superior options than thick, ugly, obvious glasses.
Go search AliExpress right now for “hidden camera”. Your mind will be blown.
With smart glasses, everyone’s a sex offender.
A completely unenforceable idea driven by moral panic. We’re already seeing plenty of cheap ones on temu, and other more covert types of cameras have been available for years. (Look up pen cameras on Amazon, you’ll look at anyone with a pen in their shirt pocket very differently for the rest of your life)
Not to mention there’s already open source 3d printed smart glasses. Which means this would no doubt lead to calls for ID checks to buy a 3d printer.
I’m a complete assault on right to self repair, several states are already trying to force 3d printers to validate what they’re printing with some database. They used guns as the Trojan horse but everyone knew it wouldn’t stay there and soon ip checks would be coming
Didn’t this come to law in California already? Really infuriating that there’s actual possibility of 3d printers being regulated this way.
Uh oh, Mark’s about to lose his glasses.
They gonna ban the usage in cinemas, then super markets, then the gyms, then they gonna ban guys to buy them, ban dogs to buy them, ban…
They gonna “ban” everything else but the glasses selling itself… Can’t touch big corpos you know…
See, the whole joke was that Mark was the sex offender. It was a bit of a sideways jab and can be missed.
Good thing they won’t be able to buy used.
/S
I would agree only if the responsibility to not carry smart glasses is on the offender only, so vendors wouldn’t have to check their ID, but the perp could be arrested and charged for having them.
